Backfire Troll .Gif

"Lets Just Drive" (lets-just-drive) 09/12/2013 at 14:17 • Filed to: GIFS

6

28

Use appropriately.

Osiris - I can haz Euro spec? > Lets Just Drive 09/12/2013 at 14:20

2

Did I just see someone die?

Dusty Ventures > Lets Just Drive 09/12/2013 at 14:20

3

What makes this even more entertaining/terrifying is that those look like 5 gallon fuel drums in the front of the boat...

HammerheadFistpunch > Lets Just Drive 09/12/2013 at 14:21

2

The level of stupid is...not able to be counted.

Paul, Man of Mustangs > Lets Just Drive 09/12/2013 at 14:24

4

"Hey, let's go troll Jez!"

"Awesome! Let me just prepare some material..."

Brian Tschiegg > HammerheadFistpunch 09/12/2013 at 14:24

0

Looks vaguely like Russia, so it might be the BAC level.

Lets Just Drive > Osiris - I can haz Euro spec? 09/12/2013 at 14:25

0

No. Grenades aren't designed to kill. They're designed to incapacitate. That said, even though someone might have lost an arm, I'd wager that both lived to blow themselves up another day.

Lets Just Drive > Paul, Man of Mustangs 09/12/2013 at 14:26

0

Pretty much.

Autophile412 - what's the world got in store? > Lets Just Drive 09/12/2013 at 14:29

1

WTF just happened. How did either of them think that was a good idea? That's just (pardon my choice of word) pure retardation.

Lets Just Drive > Autophile412 - what's the world got in store? 09/12/2013 at 14:31

0

Group B-raaaaaaaaaap! > Lets Just Drive 09/12/2013 at 14:32

2

Move along, nothing to see here. Just two dudes in a boat, blowing the hell out of each other.

Osiris - I can haz Euro spec? > Lets Just Drive 09/12/2013 at 14:33

2

I've never heard anyone say that grenades are not designed to kill. While this may be true, they can still fuck up your day pretty good!

Lets Just Drive > Group B-raaaaaaaaaap! 09/12/2013 at 14:33

2

Rub a dub dub, two men in a tub?

Shamoononon drives like a farmer > Lets Just Drive 09/12/2013 at 14:33

1

His head went flying off! Why you post this?

Lets Just Drive > Osiris - I can haz Euro spec? 09/12/2013 at 14:36

0

It's like landmines, or modern ballistic ammunition; the goal in their design is not to kill, but to incapacitate. Every soldier and officer knows that a wounded soldier is worth more to the enemy then a dead one - the impacts on morale, the need to provide medical care, etc. Smart weapons aren't designed to kill, but to grievously wound. Now, if you're talking about anti-armor, tactical missiles or guided bombs, however; the story is very different. Designed for maximum collateral damage, if you're an enemy who is killed or wounded by one of these... well...

Lets Just Drive > Shamoononon drives like a farmer 09/12/2013 at 14:36

0

His jacket goes up over his head. But it sure looks like he got his head blow'd off.

GasolineLollipop > Lets Just Drive 09/12/2013 at 14:44

1

Is there an original video or story. It looks like the guy in the back loses his arm.

Lets Just Drive > GasolineLollipop 09/12/2013 at 14:46

0

No idea.

MoparKetchup > Lets Just Drive 09/12/2013 at 14:49

1

I knew Tony Soprano wasn't dead...

Lets Just Drive > MoparKetchup 09/12/2013 at 14:50

1

Gone fishin'.

Tentacle, Dutchman, drives French > Autophile412 - what's the world got in store? 09/12/2013 at 14:52

0

I think I know what this was. Or rather, what the intention was.

And if I'm right, than that was a concussive grenade rather than a fragging grenade. Because the only thing that would make sense is fishing by setting off explosives. The shockwave kills nearby fish, their bladders expand, and all dead fish float to the surface, ready to be scooped up.

Sethersm > Lets Just Drive 09/12/2013 at 15:33

1

Video:

A comment somewhere says it was for a movie or tv shoot, which would certainly fit with the audio. They're both seen moving around later in the video, so no heads lost.

Lets Just Drive > Sethersm 09/12/2013 at 15:44

0

Is it inappropriate that while watching the video, when the grenade exploded, all I could think was, "Boom. Headshot."

Now, though, all I'm thinking is that "Ka Boom" from CoD.

pdthedeuce > Lets Just Drive 09/12/2013 at 16:52

1

easiest way to tell if somebody died in a viral video...if they show it on Tosh.0 , nobody died.

Slave2anMG > Lets Just Drive 09/12/2013 at 18:57

0

Could it have been a 'mere' concussion grenade?

Darwins_Payoff > Lets Just Drive 09/13/2013 at 03:16

1

Where exactly did you hear this? I'm willing to bet that no one in the history of warfare (myself included), has ever used a frag grenade without the intention of killing the intended target.

Lets Just Drive > Darwins_Payoff 09/13/2013 at 03:29

0

First of all, if the implication is that you are or were in the armed forces, I'd like to thank you for your service.

Second, and I have no ambition or desire to discredit your experience, the application of a weapon, such as a grenade (a very general term, but I don't wish to get into semantics or an argument) or the intention behind its use has less to do with its design intentions then its real world application.

I would further add that most anti-personnel explosives employed by modern, first world and generally western countries, and those which abide by the Geneva Conventions are designed with the intention to disable or incapacitate as many enemy combatants as possible - death is an byproduct. If the objective is incapable of offering resistance it is much easier to overcome that obstacle.

A good reference is the Bouncing Betty. Designed to explode at waist level and disperse a spray of shrapnel, it was never designed to kill a target but simply to incapacitate it. The same is true of many, if not most, antipersonnel mines. The logic behind this is sound. It is easier to injure or incapacitate many people with a nonspecific weapon then it is to kill and individual. Firearms are a completely different story but, having said that, I believe most soldiers are instructed to shoot center of mass. Ammunition design takes this into account and the result are bullets which fragment or tumble inside the target causing maximum collateral damage. As a soldier, though your intent may not be to kill, the instinct is, I understand, much the same and heavily encouraged. Thus, in modern ammunition design, manufacturers develop bullets which, and I mean no discredit, do the work for you. And that's a good thing - if you can put a single round in an enemies chest and know that, dead or alive, that target won't present a future obstacle, you're better off then having to use four or five shots, or headshots come the zombie apocalypse (a little humor).

So, in summation; all of the above.

Darwins_Payoff > Lets Just Drive 09/13/2013 at 05:04

1

Thanks, was in the Army, been out for a about a year now. The logic behind incapacitating was hammered into our heads in basic, but typically was emphasized as an enemy tactic, not one we used. Wounded enemies actually caused a hindrance to mission, since we were the ones responsible providing medical assistance to their wounded. That being said, when we fired our weapons, the intent was to kill, and a single 556 round center mass is almost always fatal.

While some grenades are meant to be less than lethal, it would be extremely difficult to use a frag grenade in a manner that would only incapacitate. When one is tossed one into a room, it's under the expectation that it will kill everyone inside. If frag grenades were designed to be easily used a non-lethal weapon, they failed. I only speak of frags since that's what most people mean when they use the general term grenade.

Again, I'm also assuming you are talking about the US, but we don't use landmines or betty's, since they cause unnecessary suffering, and haven't for about two decades.

Lets Just Drive > Darwins_Payoff 09/13/2013 at 14:38

0

Well, no, I'm not talking only about contemporary weapons (say, decades) but at least as far back as World War One. And you're welcome to disagree, but I assure you that when developing nonspecific weapons the intention is virtually never to kill. Fundamentally, that creates an attitude which many if not most Engineers, not being active service military men for the most part, are able to carry out their work.

Example: In WW1 and WW2, the Allies employed weapons designed, specifically designed, to injure or wound. Granted, that mandate has changed somewhat on the modern battlefield as the expectation has shifted to some odd dichotomy that places equal responsibility on dispatching the enemy while upholding the enemies inalienable human rights. But, even as recently as Korea and Vietnam, that mandate was still being employed... by all sides. The idea being; a wounded soldier damages the morale of the uninjured, consumes resources which would otherwise be better used accomplishing the mission and generally fucks up your get shit done mentality.

Now, I recognize that most weapons of warfare can kill, and can do so with extreme efficiency but, and this is important, I assure you that the intention behind every weapon is to accomplish a goal and that goal is almost never death, it is, like I said, a byproduct and one which is welcome. That isn't to say that many weapons aren't designed to kill - you make an excellent point about standard NATO rounds, but simply to say that the engineering and design imparatives behind a weapons development vitually never refer to death, murder, killing, or any such bold language. Instead, words are used like "casualty" and "collateral damage" as the better describe the intent behind its development if not its real world application.

A grenade is not designed to kill. A grenade is designed to inflict maximum casualties and collateral damage. If people die during its implementation, which is expected, it s a byproduct of the intended result which is to incapacitate (which is just a clever way of saying "put down" regardless of the resulting medical condition) and the method by which many weapons designers are able to sleep at night.

I thoroughly respect your opinion and contribution and, again, I'm not trying to discredit either but rather simply trying to suggest that that the differences in language, in application and in design aren't mutually exclusive and thus describing a "grenade" as designed not to kill, but to incapacitate, is actually accurate.

But, as we all know.... some better than others, that design and application can be worlds apart. For instance, when was the last time you actually ate an MRE and didn't use it to poison the enemy? HAHA! (Went camping with some of my ex-service friends and they brought along a bunch of MRE's and eventually I was drunk enough to consume a few but never have I felt such sympathy for the serving soldier as when I was trying to get that shit down!)